Ollie 1,069 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 http://www.varesesarabande.com/News.aspDiscuss, good or bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego 21 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Could be bad for me if they ever release something that interest me since I can't download from iTunes or Amazon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Every label should do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Interesting. As long as it's "sporadic" as they say and there's still CDs available, I'm good.Every label should do this.Not really, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy 4,242 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I would hate for it to replace any releases that would've been done on CD, like last month's Nightwing. As long as CDs are still for the most part available, I'm fine with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Every label should do this.Not really, no.Why not? They manufacture the CD for those who want to physically own it, but they also make them available digitally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Hopefully this will provide the best option for fans of the composers and allow scores that might otherwise have fallen by the wayside to be added to the collection of those who want them, in the format that suits them best.This can only be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy 4,242 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The way it is worded makes me think it will be for newly released films with limited theatrical release, not resurrected scores from older movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,479 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Yes thats how I intepreted it as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,069 Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 Correct, the article clearly states that it is for upcoming films.However it seems which each small step we get closer and closer to downloads only. I know Intrada, FSM etc etc will continue to release scores in physical CD form for as long as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I don't see the problem with going digital. If you can't afford to manufacture the discs and still want the music out there, it's perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 337 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Well Koray you gotta accept the fact that there are a lot of people who prefer having the physical CD (myself included!). Not all of us are keen on having the whole digital download thing, especially that most probably won't be upgraded to the "iTunes Plus" or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Yeah I don't want it to be 100% digital. I'll always prefer a physical disc, and I don't think we'll ever get to the point of being 100% digital. But for smaller scores or labels that can't get their music out, I'd rather have digital than nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,479 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 If they made these scores available as lossless downloads I'd have NO problems with itSomething being ONLY available as lossy (I'm looking at you, Cloverfield) pisses me off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Well Koray you gotta accept the fact that there are a lot of people who prefer having the physical CD (myself included!). Not all of us are keen on having the whole digital download thing, especially that most probably won't be upgraded to the "iTunes Plus" or whatever.how do u tell beforehand what is iTunes Plus and what isn't? I've only ever bought 3 songs, Williams' Obama inauguration piece, End Crawl from Quantum of Solace and We'll Meet Again by Vera Lynn and they are all 256kbps AAC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,069 Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 I think it tells you when you go to download or it should be available on the cue info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Limited to 3000 downloads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalfreakNYC 59 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 If they made these scores available as lossless downloads I'd have NO problems with itSomething being ONLY available as lossy (I'm looking at you, Cloverfield) pisses me offAgreed. I'm not paying for something that's compressed. CD's are the only option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,807 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 If not making CDs means that they can release more music... then that's fine.If not... DAMN i want to have Physical CDs (with case and cover art) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 50 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Well Koray you gotta accept the fact that there are a lot of people who prefer having the physical CD (myself included!). Not all of us are keen on having the whole digital download thing, especially that most probably won't be upgraded to the "iTunes Plus" or whatever.how do u tell beforehand what is iTunes Plus and what isn't? I've only ever bought 3 songs, Williams' Obama inauguration piece, End Crawl from Quantum of Solace and We'll Meet Again by Vera Lynn and they are all 256kbps AACAlmost the entire catalogue has been converted to iTunes Plus. It's the standard for new releases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ymenard 54 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 All this non-sense of OOP scores and limited runs will someday be of the past when labels understand that they would make a lot more money by putting them online for all. All the Ebayers would become useless and scores would finally be democratised and given access to true fans of soundtracks. A CD is just a piece of plastic and aluminium with no value. It's all and only about the music.(hopefully minimum 256kbps or VBR V1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitch 58 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Like these 2 titles available from today. Limited edition to 1,000 units each.http://www.varesesarabande.com/default.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,758 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 All this non-sense of OOP scores and limited runs will someday be of the past when labels understand that they would make a lot more money by putting them online for all. All the Ebayers would become useless and scores would finally be democratised and given access to true fans of soundtracks. A CD is just a piece of plastic and aluminium with no value. It's all and only about the music.(hopefully minimum 256kbps or VBR V1)The limited runs are I think mainly to avoid the re-use fees associated with a regular release, and that's out of the labels' control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Imagine if that happened for a new Williams release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,758 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Indeed. A 75 minute CD coming from an L.A. orchestra doesn't sound right at all... Concord clearly stumped up a lot of cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desplat13 1 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Well Koray you gotta accept the fact that there are a lot of people who prefer having the physical CD (myself included!). Not all of us are keen on having the whole digital download thing, especially that most probably won't be upgraded to the "iTunes Plus" or whatever.how do u tell beforehand what is iTunes Plus and what isn't? I've only ever bought 3 songs, Williams' Obama inauguration piece, End Crawl from Quantum of Solace and We'll Meet Again by Vera Lynn and they are all 256kbps AACAlmost the entire catalogue has been converted to iTunes Plus. It's the standard for new releases.Is iTunes Plus loss less? If so, was Up! lossless? I downloaded from Amazon because I thought I saw that they had a higher (256) kbps. If they make these available as high quality downloads, I'm fine with it. But PLEASE don't make people settle for 256 kbps when a CD will get you so far above that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 iTunes plus is 256. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desplat13 1 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 OK, they still haven't figured it out. That's terrible. When is someone going to make these available in high quality? Looking forward to a promo leak... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I recall seeing Up "around" in FLAC.Edit: Never mind. I recalled incorrectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixie_twinkle 48 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I would hate for it to replace any releases that would've been done on CD, like last month's Nightwing. As long as CDs are still for the most part available, I'm fine with it.I only buy downloads as an absolute last resort. I'd far rather have the CD (uncompressed great audio with liner notes and booklet to flick through, a trophy on my shelf) than the download (generally poor quality compressed audio without anything physical to read, hold, or display). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fommes 154 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I only buy downloads as an absolute last resort. I'd far rather have the CD (uncompressed great audio with liner notes and booklet to flick through, a trophy on my shelf) than the download (generally poor quality compressed audio without anything physical to read, hold, or display).How controversial! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 50 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Well Koray you gotta accept the fact that there are a lot of people who prefer having the physical CD (myself included!). Not all of us are keen on having the whole digital download thing, especially that most probably won't be upgraded to the "iTunes Plus" or whatever.how do u tell beforehand what is iTunes Plus and what isn't? I've only ever bought 3 songs, Williams' Obama inauguration piece, End Crawl from Quantum of Solace and We'll Meet Again by Vera Lynn and they are all 256kbps AACAlmost the entire catalogue has been converted to iTunes Plus. It's the standard for new releases.Is iTunes Plus loss less? If so, was Up! lossless? I downloaded from Amazon because I thought I saw that they had a higher (256) kbps. If they make these available as high quality downloads, I'm fine with it. But PLEASE don't make people settle for 256 kbps when a CD will get you so far above that.iTunes is 256 kbps AAC and Amazon is 256 kbps MP3. I believe that makes iTunes the superior format for the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,758 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I would hate for it to replace any releases that would've been done on CD, like last month's Nightwing. As long as CDs are still for the most part available, I'm fine with it.I only buy downloads as an absolute last resort. I'd far rather have the CD (uncompressed great audio with liner notes and booklet to flick through, a trophy on my shelf) than the download (generally poor quality compressed audio without anything physical to read, hold, or display).So you agree then that a download is an acceptable route if it's not financially viable to press a bunch of CDs?There's so much music out there that most 'normal' people don't care about, but which would have a small following among score fans if made available to download- you can't deny that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I prefer having the compact disc for the higher quality audio and the aesthetic appeal of the my CD collection. I like to watch it grow, like a physical library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 337 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 If they made the downloads available in lossless, even if it's a buck more or whatever then I'll only consider the downloads. I don't like lossy sources for scores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desplat13 1 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Henry, I didn't realize that MP3 and AAC with the same specs actually have different qualities. I guess I don't really know how these things work. Interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fommes 154 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 AAC is a much newer compression format, so the compression is improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I prefer having the compact disc for the higher quality audio and the aesthetic appeal of the my CD collection. I like to watch it grow, like a physical library.Seconded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Buying CDs is great when you are starting out, but once you get everything that you want, you reach the stage of only buying new releases. So your library pretty much freezes. The last physical CD I bought was probably Duplicity.My brother still buys a lot because there are so many RCP composers releasing music. We agreed that he'd get Star Trek and Lost: S4 and I'll get Up and Land Of The Lost. Unfortunately Up was a digital release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,069 Posted June 11, 2009 Author Share Posted June 11, 2009 I have yet to even come close to having everything I want on CD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I have yet to even come close to having everything I want on CD.Yup, I too still have many holy grails that I shall enjoy pursuing for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixie_twinkle 48 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I would hate for it to replace any releases that would've been done on CD, like last month's Nightwing. As long as CDs are still for the most part available, I'm fine with it.I only buy downloads as an absolute last resort. I'd far rather have the CD (uncompressed great audio with liner notes and booklet to flick through, a trophy on my shelf) than the download (generally poor quality compressed audio without anything physical to read, hold, or display).So you agree then that a download is an acceptable route if it's not financially viable to press a bunch of CDs?I wouldn't go that far. I see it as being better than nothing, but hardly the way forward. It seems like a big leap backward quality-wise. I just think it's interesting that people who are spending a fortune to upgrade their TVs to digital, and their DVD players to Blu-Ray seem to be happy downloading mp3s and settling for crappy audio quality. What's going on here? Is the human eye more sensitive than the human ear or something? Why are people settling for this audio quality when the older technology (CDs, SACDs, heck even vinyl!) are vastly superior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,758 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I don't get this continued argument of crappy audio quality. Unless you're someone who really can tell the difference, or have seriously high end equipment, I don't see how you can tell the difference between a CD and a well encoded mp3. I certainly can't.And yes, I think it's a lot easier to compress audio than it is to compress video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitch 58 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Like these 2 titles available from today. Limited edition to 1,000 units each.http://www.varesesarabande.com/default.aspBoth SOLD OUT now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixie_twinkle 48 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I don't get this continued argument of crappy audio quality. Unless you're someone who really can tell the difference, or have seriously high end equipment, I don't see how you can tell the difference between a CD and a well encoded mp3. certainly can't.And yes, I think it's a lot easier to compress audio than it is to compress video.You can really tell in the high and low-end frequencies the most. Those are usually the first to go in the compression process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,758 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Yeah but most of those are frequencies we can't hear, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 337 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Abolish reuse fees? You don't think the musicians and that should be paid for their work on recording the score? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Union cards, please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wycket 36 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I can definitely understand people not liking reuse fees, as it does seem a little arbitrary. Carpenters who work on movies don't get paid more depending on how the movie does, so why sound musicians get paid more just because a certain amount of music they performed is used? Its not an attack and I'm not saying they should be abolished, I'm just proposing the counter argument. I assume musicians are paid to perform the music, and re-use fees are applied for how much of that music is released. This is where I become confused, as I don't see why musicians who didn't write the music need to be paid just because of their performance of said piece. I understand that people deserve to get paid and these are what the rules are, it just seems to me that the rules are arbitrary. As I mentioned earlier, carpenters and other people don't get paid extra for their work if DVDs and the like are released, so why should musicians (who didn't write the music, but were only paid to perform it) get paid an additional fee that others who worked on the movie did not.As I said, I am not trying to take money out of people's hands, only I'm trying to not only provide a counter-argument, but try to more deeply understand why re-use fees exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
publicist 4,643 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Abolish reuse fees? You don't think the musicians and that should be paid for their work on recording the score?They are paid. Re-Use fees are an additional income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now